bill or the resistance to it, first among senate republicans and then most -- if not all of the house republicans. there are today twice the numbers of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record. it has usually been a bipartisan effort. but the claim among republicans is that we cannot afford it because of the deficit. these members seem to have discovered fiscal responsibility when it comes to unemployed workers but not when it comes to paying for tax cuts for the very wealthy. so, we have to extend unemployment and cobra. we have also acted in the recovery act for those dislocated by trade. in the recovery act we began some long needed reforms of the unemployment compensation system. system. all so we included --

has been somewhat overlooked -- some important we put -- improvements to provide funding to help states with rising welfare caseloads. and it is really interesting. i do suggest that those in the media look at what the states have been doing with the several billion dollars in this tandem program. some of the most conservative states have in essentially used the money to put people back to work. unfortunately for the disabled congress has provided increase funding -- fortunately, for the disabled, congress is provided increased funding. in michigan today the average wait for those who are disabled or claim to be disabled is over three years. and there is no health care. these are people we don't see. it is hard to find them.

they are covered by privacy requirements. but we need to do better. remember, two-thirds of the claims that are being litigated eventually are approved and people are waiting all of these years falling deeper and deeper in despair and some even dying before the litigation can proceed. so let me say a word about tax policy. the rumor is ways and means has jurisdiction. just a brief word about the estate tax it expired -- estate tax. it expired. four months into the year without a resolution. i find this uncertainty unacceptable and unfair. i wrote this out and i had to double check. i am a lawyer.

i did a bit of estate planning. but i do not think i fully realize all the ramifications. for instance, many wells are written to leave as much to the children as is the load the estate tax threshold with the rest going to their surviving spouse. today, that means that the children may well be left with nothing. just a word about the expiring tax cuts. during the last again amid stanton from 2001 through 2007, the top 1% of americans received two-thirds of the increase in national income while the middle class incomes in essentially stagnated. the divergence of income we have seen in the last decade means that we should keep the middle income tax cuts and let those

for the very wealthy expire. and i think that is going to eventually happened. set by statutory pay go -- and not only sets the course but is a vital step for fiscal responsibility. just a word. once we handle these issues, we can turn our attention to reform of the tax code. charlie rangel, as you know, months ago unfolded -- unveiled a comprehensive tax reform proposal. and i think we will continue to work on it. just a few words about trade. some of you know, i have been somewhat involved in this and have some deep feelings about it. the bush administration took a hands-off approach to trade policy. those of you who report on it have heard me say it so many times. it was wedded to the view that

the more the trade, the better, no matter its terms or content. in my judgment we need to both expand trade and spread its benefits more broadly and be sure that our workers and businesses are playing on a level playing field. that has been the expression most importantly of the president. talking about the need for it to be reciprocal, not to just a one-way street. and the administration has taken important steps to carry that out. a brief word -- and you may want to talk more about the specific trade agreements. that the administration inherited from the bush administration -- correa, colombia, and panama. -- korea. no doubt they contain important positive aspects but also flaws and when they were being negotiated we made clear to

those negotiating that they had to be changed. they were not. and now we need to fix them. last week without a bipartisan meeting of key house members. four of us republicans and democrats, with the new u.s. t our leadership working on the dole hot negotiations -- usta leadership working on the doha negotiations. we are going to be working together, i hope, on a broad range of issues. we will save it transpacific partnership agreements and all so the issues of currency. we are going to actively offer our support for the administration's g-20 initiative to address unsustainable global trade and financial balances,

including addressing currency policies. china's currency is clearly undervalued and it is an important cause of our country's major trade deficit. and i will continue to work with this administration over the next few months as it addresses in the g-20, as it must, the currency issue. let me conclude with just a few thoughts. so many of the pending issues of 2010 are in the jurisdiction of our committee. moving ahead responsibly and responsive fully -- responsively -- we have held hearings, for example, on china's currency, and more recently on energy and technology issues and we had recently a committee markup of the most recent jobs bill and will continue to do that.

just this last comment. much is being reported now about the political outlook for november, and as i look about it, it is true of many of you. congressional democrats know that repairing the damage of the combination of harmful bush administration policies in many key areas and it's in action in others and replacing them with sound policies require both persistence and patience and a vigorous dialogue with the american people. we know that responding to the dynamics of a perfect storm means resistance as a part of progress. we have confidence that the path forward we are charting builds on the finest american traditions and that we are going

to succeed. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, chairman levin. in keeping with a wide range of topics your committee oversees we have a wide range of topics for questions. i can see that more are still coming in. starting off with one of the topics, health care reform. it is being said the health care reform package use all of the low hanging fruit in terms of revenue raisers. where can the committee look for new sources to pay for new investments? >> by the way -- i welcome your questions, and i know it is the tradition here to have written questions. so, i'm sorry you don't have to identify yourselves, who asked the question. and also i love the back and

forth, including the chance to disagree with me after i in answer. but i followed the traditions of this distinguished press club, including r d court that i until late not used to. -- include the red cord i am totally not used to. i did not know how low hanging it was but it was there. black liquor was used so many times that we almost became drunk. what are we going to use instead? because we have the extender bill that has been renamed the jobs bill. and we have our small business bill over there. and those relating to treaty shopping. and there is some resisting to

it. also over there is a bill, with carried interest in it. all of these have been controversial. i met with senator baucus about a week ago, last monday, and we had a thorough and, i think, very constructive discussion about where we are going to find today for it. i just want to assure everybody that is here that a week -- that we are going to take a serious look at those provisions and others. we have to pay for them. it is required by pay go and buy fiscal responsibility. not the unemployment provisions, cobra provisions, that are essentially covered by pay go. and i am hopeful that as we discussed of this, that the

republicans will drop their opposition to extending unemployment compensation unless it is paid for. we have not paid for extensions of unemployment or cobra and pay go, provide, as i said, the structure to proceed. however, the rest of the provisions have to be paid for. and i am not sure where the fruit is. some people think it is sour. some may think it is riveting. but the main thing -- some might think it is robbing. but the main thing, we will find pay fors using some intelligent discussion going beyond the labels to see where we can find provisions that provide resources with equity. with equity.

>> thank you. just to note -- the red line. we know you are popular among the tax and trade lobbyists around town and we tried to keep the paparazzi away from you. out of respect to the speakers. a lot of questions have to do with the various free-trade agreements that have been waiting for some kind of approval or ratification have you received any signals from the white house that they intend to send you any of the pending free-trade agreements this year? the think the korea free trade and up -- free trade agreement can be fixed, especially with automobiles? >> let me take them in turn. panama -- by the way, we have been working on these four years. it was a year and a half ago, i think, that i spent two saturdays at the panama and is a with a staff person discussing with the panamanians of the

free trade agreement. in those days, the administration did not want to negotiate labor and environmental provisions. so east and chile, the democratic trade staff and i -- essentially the democratic trade staff and i did not negotiate. that change. it is up to ustr to do the negotiating. the issue we discussed with panama then related to their coming into compliance with basic ill worker rights provisions. the tax haven issue was not as prominent then as it is now. essentially what has to happen essentially what has to happen with panama is to -- and to pass a tax haven provision. they do that, and i think and then we will be in the position to move forward.

let me say a word about korea. i said to the administration and negotiators that they had to open up the korean market for our industrial goods. they sent 700,000 cars a year here and we ship less than 10,000. they have a wall against our exports industrially. american refrigerator manufacturers cannot sell a refrigerator in career. you can go into a lows or home depot and by several caribbean made refrigerators. it is a one-way street. we told them that it had to change and had to provide for these changes. they went ahead with a path that was sure to fail.

can it be fixed? yes. presidents met, the korean president and president obama, for the first time it indicated a willingness to sit down and talk about fixing a -- and fortunately, when the two presidents met. i want to say a word about colombia. our trade policy under this administration is essentially says this -- you have to expand trade, but to do so in a way that spreads its benefits. that is better for those countries and better for hours. with colombia and -- and this was the battle we had over tafta -- cafta. latin-american countries

essentially into many cases have these deep disparities in terms of income and opportunity. you can't grow middle-class is under those circumstances. middle class is the one who buy our goods, basically. so there is a basic point in worker rights and environmental issues. it is not because anybody is standing up for any particular interest group in this country. we are standing up for our businesses and workers and and the workers and other countries in need to be part of the nixon ordered to buy our goods. -- part of the mix in order to buy our goods. today there was an article -- you reporters, we clip you endlessly and we stuck them in our pockets the same way.

so i stopped this in my pocket, and it comes from "the washington post." colombia struggles to reduce poverty. the gap between rich and poor continues. i went down to colombia myself, like i did when i went to china myself and the cast of countries myself to see firsthand what the conditions were pared i'd met the people who worked with bus sugar industry. there is essentially workers are totally deprived of their ability to be participants and have a say. they have set up these so called cooperative is that are essentially a dummy outfits, and workers go from cooperative to cooperative, being paid for by some entity, unable to be able to be a major part of the economy.

that has to be fixed for their good and our good. i fully understand the importance of opening up the colombian market. i fuller -- fully understand it for our businesses and workers. but we need to have trade agreements that essentially reflect our values, and in the case of workers, basic international labor values. once that happens, we will be able to proceed. i understand some -- there also have to be gains in terms of diminishing the disparities in income that has so beleaguered the latin american countries. i finish with this. my beloved dad, her granddad, loved and latin america, traveled there. we were raised with that feeling

of affection. he was the honorary consul general for honduras in michigan in the 1950's. he wanted to find a country that would make him consul, so he found honduras. he stamped 5 visas a year. but he felt so deeply about the importance of those countries, fully meeting the needs of their constituents. that is what this is all about. so in a word, i think we need to proceed. we need to address the outstanding issues. i hope we can do that. >> one of the frequent arguments made in favor of ratifying this free trade agreements is the need to support strategic allies. how much weight should foreign- policy decisions be given in determining whether to ratify a free-trade agreement? >> the answer is, some.

but they are trade agreements. that is the answer. i mean -- look, we know with korea, for example, the other issues. they are important issues. all i suggest is that they did not totally overwhelm what is the basic purpose of a free trade agreement. i will finish with this. the rhetoric in this town, of this administration or people like myself being isolationist -- charlie rangel and isolationist? -- charlie rangel, an isolationist? it is people will understand the importance of globalization and want to make it work. work, as the article indicates, not for a minority but for the fast -- they asked people of that country because it is better for that country and it

is better for our country. and that was once the foundation of american policy toward latin america. and i wanted to be revived, and i have confidence under this administration that it will be. >> one month ago you chaired a hearing on chinese currency manipulation after which included the status quo was unsustainable. another month has passed but china bought the currency has not appreciated against the dollar. president obama discussed the issue with chinese president jintao and washington but no promises were made or timeline said. what is congress's role to play? legislation on the currency helpful? should the treasury designate china as a currency manipulator in its overdue currency report? >> the administration is essentially decided on this course, to try to resolve the china currency issue multilaterally.

when secretary geithner and i met, two fridays ago, i think, we discussed it at length. and he made clear that that was how they were going to go. the g-20 is meeting in a couple of months. it is clear to me this administration is endeavoring to try to help bring about a change. china has rigged its currency. it has been part of its overall strategy. it has to change. they are going to try to use a multilateral process to help bring that about. if it doesn't work, the u.s. will act. i have no doubt about it. i think the administration will act and i think congress will act. congressional pressure -- i think perhaps helps the chinese

understand that the status quo is unacceptable. it has had it that imbalance, a substantial impact on our businesses and our workers. one can argue endlessly how much is an undervalued, between 15% or 40%, or 10% or 30%? and how many jobs have been lost? all we know the chinese government -- it is not the only thing -- but the currency is a major tool for them essentially to get an advantage economically over us. it is far from fair for us. i think it is also unwise for the chinese to continue doing it that way. so, in a word, i think it will change by the end of the g-20 meetings. china will make the decisions,

will begin to do this, or else we will take further steps. >> several questions relating to the value-added tax, a proposal discussed on capitol hill. could you please discuss the pros and cons and would such a tax by late president obama's promise not to impose taxes on people making less than $250,000? >> i have been listening to this debate. i saw, waiting for the red wings hockey game -- i should not have waited. i listened to the talk shows and it was adjusting how the value added tax had gained such prominence. i was somewhat surprised. i have heard almost nobody within our ranks discussing it. i know that one distinguished economist in this town did talk

about it. but the administration hasn't. so i was somewhat surprised. my guess is by next week it will be a goner. that is for good reason. i think it has been raised mostly by the republicans for political gain, trying to label us as a taxer. i suggest not only am i wrong but they should read paul ryan's proposal, he is a republican, and he has a value added tax provision in it. so, i don't think it is on the agenda. and so, let me suggest that we can argue the pros and cons. the next time i can come to the press club. >> under chairman rangel ways and means committee put enormous effort into putting together a

revenue-neutral package of tax reforms that would broaden the overhaul base and lower taxes on u.s. companies and middle-class taxpayers. given the deficit, is a possible to do a revenue-neutral reform? does any broad package of changes or reforms need to bring in more revenue overall? >> i think, to charlie rangel's credit, he brought it out, as i said earlier, some months ago -- many months ago. and i think clearly tax reform has to be a major item on the agenda. as to whether it is neutral or not, i think has to be discussed at a time we are able to focus in on a comprehensive tax reform. this isn't the time now. we have it immediately in front of us the estate tax issue. we have immediately in front of

us the 2001-2003 tax cuts. we have to address them. it isn't going to be easy if -- it isn't going to be easy. if there isn't a budget resolution with fervor reconciliation possibilities it will take 60 votes. if any of you can tell me how we are sure to get that, tell me. it will be off the record. i am not sure how we do that. but that really has to be the focus in the coming months. i'm not sure how we do it. i am not sure -- but it has to be the first order of business. and clearly comprehensive tax reform is an issue for next year, not this year. >> is it realistic to believe that individual tax increases

can be limited only to high and taxpayers when the bush tax cut to expire at the end of the year? >> yes. [laughter] >> de think all taxes are the same? if not, what kind of taxes serve society best? >> who wrote that question? [laughter] i meant that almost seriously. that is why i love town hall meetings. because the person who asks the question has to announce himself or herself. obviously all taxes are not the same. by the way, as i was writing my remarks, i was reading some material and talking with the most talented staff, if i might say so, in congress, the ways and means staff. i had a chance to serve on four

of the subcommittees over the years of ways and means. now income security -- where i was able to serve as ranking after are much loved -- passed away, then of course, a trade. i was going back over some materials. my guess is, if i gave you a test -- if i asked all of you to take a piece of paper and answer this question. what percentage of american taxes come from payroll taxes? my guess is, most of you might not pass. because some of the rhetoric in this town is that most people don't pay taxes. people don't say income taxes.

they pay taxes. but it is well, well over 40 or perhaps 45% come from payroll taxes which virtually everybody does pay. so the answer is, no, all taxes are far from the same. my guess is that we will continue to have an income tax, which is progressive, that we will look at taxes like payroll taxes, and try to see if we can make some adjustments. we have social security and medicare to look at. we have the health care bill and its tax provisions to look at. clearly they are not all the same. what we have to do in our society is find ways to make intelligent decisions as to which taxes are the fairest,

most equitable taxes. >> any reason the u.s. should not put a tax on financial transactions similar to a tax on stock trades in the u.k. uses? >> let me just quickly cover this point, because i thought somebody might ask about the bank tax and the financial transaction taxes. i don't think the financial transaction tax idea is likely to be acceptable. we are now thinking about what we do with what is called the bank tax. i think you know, tarp legislation essentially required in the next few years for the administration to come up with suggestions as to how any --

gap, in terms of repayment, is filled. it now looks like 60% or 75% of the tarp funds will sure be repaid, and i think it is close to that already. there is likely to be a gap. and so, it is important to figure out how we are going to fill it. and the financial regulation provision in the senate has a tax, but different than is being discussed related to the bank tax. i think one way or another, we are going to consider this issue as to a financial fee or a tax on institutions that benefited from the essentials needed to rescue our economy. there are various ways to go. assets versus income, for

example. the administration has proposed one path. we have been discussing intensely with the administration the various paths that may be opened. if i might say so, this is the example of the importance of the ways and means committee and the importance of our working with the finance committee, the importance of our working with the administration, and i hope the importance of working with the minority to try to find out the best way to do this if we are going to do it. that is what we are in the middle of. i expect those in the media are going to be asking us in the next weeks ahead how it is going, and i will try to tell you. at this point, it is not clear. >> moving to climate change -- the think the carbon tax provisions are workable and what are your ideas on climate change

legislation? >> you know, i am not sure where we are going because it has become so politicized. i voted for the cap-and-trade provision. by the way, our staff and i put together the provisions in terms of border adjustments. somewhat related to the other issues, including a vat tax because one of the problems we had with the trade is, as you know, other countries have a tax system that advantage is somewhat directly their producers. our system is more complicated. we had to be sure and the cap- and-trade bill that we had a provision so that other countries did not become a party to a meaningful environmental structure, and therefore gain an advantage over us economically,

that we had an instrumentality to react. it was interesting -- i might say so -- how it immediately got caught up in the polarized rhetoric of trade. they said, in quotes, it was protectionist. what we were doing is saying that if other countries tried to get -- and there had to be a deliberate effort -- to gain advantage in trade through pollution, if you want to put it directly, that we would be able to compete. so, any energy legislation has to include a sensitivity to who is included, and as to what happens if we are competing with those who are not included.

so, i think the cap-and-trade bill met major resistance. i think john kerry and barbara boxer and others, working with lindsey graham, may have a way to do this that would work, that was different. all i can say is this. and this gets back to the perfect storm. and it relates, i guess, to the environment. from my generation, global warming is a threat that we must address in terms of our children and our grandchildren. the assumption is that it will all work out is an assumption that is too dangerous. so, i think this will probably not be the year, but maybe so, but if it is not this year, i hope this country will have

enough sense to have a sensible discussion of climate issues and not to be caught up in what has become so divisive within our rhetoric. >> we are almost out of time. before asking the last question we have a couple important matters to take care of. first, let us remind our guests and members of future speakers. april 30, secretary of the department of navy and may 19 hosting the honorable tim kane, chair of the democrat national committee will discuss his party's prospects in the 2010 elections. second, the moment we have been waiting for, we would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mugged. -- mug. [applause] >> i will unwrap it.

>> the final question. the pew research center released a survey today that found that four out of five americans surveyed distrust government. what has to be done to restore that trust and what role do you fate -- see the ways and means committee planning specifically? >> i heard those reports. and they are very concerned. -- concerning. i think the first approach has to be integrity. i think that everybody in this country wants legislators essentially to have basic honesty, basic integrity, to be in a position to call it the way they see its after they have talked with all interested parties and with their

constituents. i think that anything that undercuts that is a serious problem. so, i think i would put that first. we also -- i also think we have to make clear that we are shutting nobody out from the debate. i must confess that i find some of the echoes in our present debate somewhat disturbing. however, i think the best answer to that is to listen and to respond. and let me say lastly in terms of how we handle this issue in terms of duty -- i think our citizens in this country have

felt somewhat shut out. we have this perfect storm. we have a feeling among the middle income groups of this country that they essentially have been treading water, as they have pared -- as they have. i think we need to respond to what is the feeling of recently treading water. and it relates to jobs. and also i think it relates to education. this health bill is called a health bill, it has some important education provisions in it. also i think there is a feeling for a need for equity and fairness. i close with this, because i think it is a special charge to the ways and means committee that has jurisdiction over social security and health care,

medicare, and trade issues where fairness is an issue and also tax policy. i think we in the committee have a solemn obligation to make sure that there is an equitable opportunity for every citizen in the united states. every citizen in the united states. and while i enjoy so much serving on this committee -- why i enjoy some of serving on this committee, is it gives me the opportunity in all of the areas i mentioned to try to make sure that this remains a land of opportunity, and add the word, community. i feel what we have been trying to do, our majority, is to keep that promise of opportunity and of community. and my own judgment is, if we

will keep at it, if we will have open the years and open minds, but also a sense of commitment and determination, that in the end we will be able to respond to those who are skeptics of the way it is today and skeptics of government. look, i want my constituents to be proud, not of me really, but of the position i hold. and of the government that i served. i want to go back and convince them that it can be such. otherwise, why run? i want to run in an atmosphere that renews trust and renews faith and renews a sense that it is a government to serve and not

to dominate. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, chairman levin. thank you all for coming today. we would also like to thank the national press club staff, including the library and broadcast operations center and for more information on joining and how to acquire a copy of today's program go to our website at press.org. thank you, and this meeting is adjourned. .

in just a moment, vice-president biden, then richard holbrooke on and -- anna afghanistan. the financial regulations bill, and later, a memorial service on the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the murrah federal building in oklahoma city. >> on washington journal, a survey on how americans feel about government. we will talk about volunteering with patrick corbi andvington ad kenneth noble will take your questions.

>> c-span, a public affairs content is on radio and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. >> vice president joe biden confirmed reports that iraqi and u.s. forces killed two senior al qaeda leaders this weekend. he also said that the u.s. is on track to withdraw all military forces by the end of next year. he spoke for about five minutes, just before the daily white hou. >> good afternoon, folks. i want to give you a brief update on an extremely important development in iraq. early this morning on -- early in the morning october 18th, iraqi security forces with the support of u.s. forces killed the two most senior leaders of

al qaeda iraq during a series of joint security operations near tikrit, abu ayyub al-masri and abu umar al-baghdadi. the former leaders of aqi are the ones who plotted, planned, and executed terrorist attacks against the iraqis in recent past, as well as against americans. their deaths are potentially devastating blows to al qaeda iraq. but equally important, in my view, is this action demonstrates the improved security strength and capacity of iraqi security forces. the iraqis led this operation, and it was based on intelligence the iraqi security forces themselves developed following their capture of a senior aqi leader last month. in short, the iraqis have taken the lead in securing iraq and its citizens by taking out both of these individuals.

this counterterrorism operation is the culmination of a lot of cooperation and very hard work by iraqi and u.s. forces to degrade aqi over the past several months and years. our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the u.s. soldier who was killed while supporting this assault. i apologize. i hate to mention the death of an individual american without mentioning their name because i don't want it to sound like it's just a line. but the family has not been informed yet, and that's the only reason i'm not releasing the name of this young hero. we also commend all the troops and civilians serving in iraq who continue to put themselves in harm's way in service of our country, and in the service of a secure and peaceful iraq. to consolidate these security gains and honor the sacrifice that so many have made is now incumbent upon iraqis' political leaders to take the next and important necessary step to form an inclusive and

representative government that meets the needs and aspirations of the iraqi people. we remain committed to end our combat mission in iraq this summer, by the end of august 2010, and in accordance with the u.s.-iraqi security agreement that was signed a couple of years ago to remove all u.s. forces from iraq by the end of 2011. as we complete this security transition, we will continue to work to build a lasting partnership with the iraqi people and their government based on the many shared interests we have that go beyond the military cooperation we've had of late, including the economy, education, cultural exchanges, and the development of a strong economy for iraq. for today, i want to mark this important milestone as the iraqi people stand up to those who would deny them peace, freedom, as well as security. there will be more difficult

days ahead, but this operation is evidence, in my view, that the future of iraq will not be shaped by those who seek to destroy that country, but belong to those who are building a strong and unified iraq as i'm confident the iraqis will do. thank you very much. r. r. special representative richard holbrooke will visit for high- level meetings. he spoke with reporters for a half-hour on afghanistan and pakistan >> good afternoon, and welcome to the department of state. actually, richard and i, along with a former colleague and friend of ours, marc grossman, were just down the hall doing a 30-minute new program called "conversations with america," where we're going to try to do interviews that are web-based, go out, in this case with marc

grossman as the chairman of the world affairs councils, to his membership but also to people around the world. so i thought that with richard right around the corner, we might bring him down here just to pay -- have one of his periodic visits to talk to you all about where we are in terms of the broad strategy that we have for afghanistan and pakistan. over the weekend, i think, richard talked to foreign minister rassoul in new york on saturday, and this morning talked with director general popal, who oversees local governance on behalf of the afghan government. we thought -- richard, you also had your own travel, as did jack and raj last week, to kabul. we thought it would be a great point to start and say where we think we are as we lead into the visit by president karzai to washington next month. >> thanks, p.j. i know you saw jack lew and rajiv shah on friday while i was in new york, so i'll just skip over the review of concept

drill which took us all to kabul on the weekend before last and -- but i'll be happy to answer your questions -- and thought instead i would focus a little bit on the future. but we've been laying out, as we did with the president on friday and internally, the calendar for the remainder of the year. and i want to just draw your attention, for your own planning purposes and so you can wreck your vacation plans, where we are for the rest of this year. and i'll just give you the benchmark dates. president karzai will be here may 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and leave on the 14th. he will bring with him a large number of his senior cabinet officials, two of whom p.j. just mentioned, both of whom i've met with in the last three

or four days. he will be here, of course, as you know, at the invitation of president obama. we are going to make this a major trip in the strengthening of our relations between us and the government of afghanistan. then will come the peace jirga, not to be confused with the loya jirga, which has a different role in afghan culture and society. this is a consultative jirga, as president karzai and his cabinet have explained it to us, and it is now scheduled for may 20th. it was originally scheduled for prior to the trip to washington. president karzai decided to postpone it till after the trip for reasons which involve both the capacity to prepare for two major events back-to-back and also the value of preceding it

with detailed talks with our government led by the president. so that's may 20th and it'll run for approximately three days, more or less, but i don't know the exact number. then the next fixable event on the agenda is the kabul conference, which is now scheduled for july 20th, about 13 weeks from now. that will be a conference hosted by the government of afghanistan. it will involve a domestic portion and an international portion, and the international portion secretary clinton plans to attend. and other internationals will be coming as well. that is an important conference, obviously. details will be extrapolated from the previous two, but it will be an affirmation of international support for the government, and it is the follow-on to the london

conference some of you attended on january 28th. >> but wait. so that was supposed to be the foreign ministers meeting that had originally been thought of being held around the end of may? >> that's right. that's exactly right. and it originally was scheduled for late may and it just -- we can't have three conferences in may. two is more than enough. so it was put off after discussions between president karzai, his own government, and the international community, including the united nations and the un. and that's exactly correct. also, the end of may runs right in on memorial day weekend and there was a scheduling nightmare for all of us as well. but the primary reason was it was just a circuit overload and we want each conference to be prepared and logically build on the events of the previous one. then, sometime between july -- then the next fixable event is in late september, the third week in september, the national

assembly elections. the date is, i think, the third week in september. i don't remember the exact date, but you can get it from our office if it matters to you. in between -- probably in between those two events but possibly after the elections, there will be another trilateral meeting of the united states, pakistan, and afghanistan. the last one was held on may 6th and 7th of last year, as you all recall, with president karzai and president zardari. we announced at that time we would hold another meeting. we did not announce the dates. but it is a clearly important part of our efforts. so if you look at the year as a whole, you will -- or you look at the last year as a whole, you will see that we had two trilateral meetings in the first few months of last year. then we stopped holding those because of the afghan elections, then we did bilaterals first with the pakistanis, the strategic

dialogue last month, and now upcoming with the afghans. then they go through their processes, they hold a conference, and then we go back to the trilateral. i mention all this because if you treat each of that as a one-off, you may miss the fact that there is a real choreography involved here. in regard to the situation in afghanistan itself, you all can reach your own conclusions about it, but in terms of our relationships between us and the government of afghanistan, we feel they're in good shape. there was a period where the waters got roiled a little bit, but that period is over. and with that, i will be happy to take your questions. charlie. >> excuse me, i think that the numbers show that in terms of civilian casualties for the first three months of this year, they're about double to the first three months of last year.

can you address the question of what -- how that affects your job on the civilian side and what effect there's been so far and what do you think the effect will be going forward? >> first the statistics, charlie. i saw the article in usa today and a few others. i haven't had a chance to do a personal drilldown on the details of those statistics: how much of that's caused by the taliban, how much of it is caused by the effects of the military operations. but i would say two things. number one, nobody has done more to try to change the rules of engagement than general mcchrystal. he feels deeply and passionately about this. i really say that as a friend of his, not as a professional colleague. i know how deeply it matters to him. and he's doing everything he can to prevent it and to deal with its consequences when it occurs.

after all, war is hell and civilian casualties are a part of all recent wars. and the second thing i would say is that civilian casualties increase as overall operations increase in intensity, and therefore it's not surprising this would happen. >> well, but how does it affect the civilian efforts you're doing -- the agriculture programs, the security issues associated with having civilians in the field? >> it doesn't affect the agriculture programs at all. it does -- it could affect, it could affect, the attitude towards the forces if it's not towards the forces if it's not -- if it is not contained overtime. no one understands that more than the general. that is why it is a priority.

at the same time, let's not forget the fact that the taliban are deeply unpopular and people are well aware of the fact that they do everything that they can to provoke a spirited -- provoke us. >> what gives you the confidence to say that you think the stormy period is behind you? what might lead you to that conclusion? >> what insights? >> my insight is my insight. >> maybe you can share it. >> well, i would be happy to. [laughter] >> to be right for? >> the metropolitan daily. >> that is my hometown paper, so i need to treat him well. . . . o hours long and

it was a very serious, substantive meeting in which neither he nor we even mentioned these issues. but prior to that, the day before that, president karzai did something remarkable, of

which there is -- there was press coverage and there was visual evidence, and yet it wasn't reported in the american press. and i really don't understand that. during the review of concept drill that general petraeus and i held at the airport, his ministers came in great numbers and participated, which in itself was a remarkable statement of interaction. we'd never had a meeting like that before, and all the afghan ministers said that. and we were so struck by it that david and i decided we would hold another such meeting in afghanistan in october and during it we would bring the ministers -- we would invite the ministers again and they would play an even larger role. but at 4:30 in the afternoon a week ago yesterday, president karzai came to the meeting. and there were cameras. there are great photographs which were not printed anywhere in the u.s. that i'm aware of.

but he came. he was briefed by david and me on what was happening. we sat on either side of him, and then he spoke for about 10 or 15 minutes about how appreciative he was of the international efforts, civilian and military, and how appreciative he was of this effort. and to those of us in the room, that was a very important symbolic statement that we had to move forward and focus on the future, and that's what we're doing. so -- and i don't even count that among the meetings i've had with president karzai since january, since we first met this year in january in london. so we're focused on the future. >> well, so what was it then that caused this little aberration, this blip? >> i leave that to you to judge. i'm not going to -- >> you don't have any insight into that? >> i will just leave it to you to judge. >> can you talk a little bit about president karzai's visit and what's on the agenda there?

what sort of things are you looking to achieve, especially with -- >> here is our notional schedule which we're still scrubbing down, so these details may change a bit. tentatively, he will arrive on may 10, monday, i guess 21 days from today. that schedule that evening will be open. we don't know what time he'll arrive. the next day, the 11th, tuesday the 11th, we are working with him on him coming to the eighth floor of the state department and with his cabinet members to be joined by american counterparts so that if the minister of defense is there, the american secretary of defense will be there, agriculture, law enforcement would be fbi director mueller, and so on, all this subject to their availability. and then having an open even for the press for about an hour, chaired by secretary clinton and co-chaired by president karzai and his

government. then we would notionally break down into breakout groups on a whole range of topics from rule of law to communications to agriculture, etc. and then in the afternoon on the 11th, we would hope that there would be an intense bilateral between the secretary of state and president karzai. on the 12th is white house day. i will leave the president to announce the invitation. i will leave all details of the white house planning to the white house to discuss with you as it develops. on the 13th would be public diplomacy day on capitol hill and think-tanks, whatever. we'll leave that to the president karzai to decide. on the 14th, some private time and departure. that is notional, and you should just say this is a tentative plan that we have discussed with president karzai and we're fleshing out now.

i know that's more detail than you normally get well in advance, but the point i want to give you is that we are taking this trip very seriously. so i wanted to give you a sense, but if you use any of that, just say this is in the planning stage, and the details don't matter as much as the fact that it's going to be a very, very intense whole-of- government effort involving many members of the u.s. government, including jack lew, rajiv shah, tom vilsack, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and, of course, senior members of congress. >> and for july 20th, the kabul conference, what support will secretary clinton try to -- >> it's a little early. we're really so focused on this and we're talking about different things, but it's in the very vague stage. it's -- we have some ideas but

they're just not at the point where they're ready for prime time. >> if i could go back to your earlier -- to what degree, if at all, is the issue of corruption -- is this going to be sort of a midterm report on karzai's anti-corruption effort? >> that's always an issue. you all know it's an issue for the most obvious of reasons. we all agree that it needs to be dealt with in a aggressive manner for the sake of our mutual goals. but -- and the high office of oversight is being upgraded by president karzai as we speak. he's working on it, he's issuing it, and we look forward to discussing it within the context of our overall relationships. >> can you give us your assessment of the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan, and will gillani now be at this trilateral meeting, or will it still be zardari? >> to be determined, on the latter question. and that is -- and i want to stress something. that's for pakistan to decide,

not for us. it -- and remember last year, we had two meetings. one was at the foreign minister level -- qureshi-spanta at the time. now the foreign minister is rassoul. and we had one at the head-of- government level. that was president zardari and president karzai. so that's way down the road. and what was the other half? >> the assessment of how -- i mean, the big goal last year was to get them working together more closely. how -- to what extent have -- because the >> we've made enormous strides there, but still not where you'd want it to be. i think everybody agrees that there's been improvement in that particular area but that's improvement from a very low base. yeah. >> can i ask just two quick operational questions from today? there was an attack on the kabul airport earlier today and

it looks like it was someone who's -- either was dressed up as an ana soldier, or who was actually an ana soldier, and -- >> i'm unaware of this. i apologize. i've been in meetings at the white house all day, so -- >> there was also an attack in peshawar, too. >> that, i am aware of. >> do you know any more about that or have any reaction to >> no. p.j., actually, do we know anything about an attack on the airport? >> no. >> i'm really sorry. thank you for telling us. historically, we're always dependent on the press for information on these things because you move so fast and your colleagues take so many more risks in reporting, but this one's news to me. the one in peshawar, what can i say? it's -- the details are still filtering in. the attack in peshawar that really was significant for us was the attack on the consulate. and we've really studied that, and that's a fascinating story. i don't know if this was briefed to you already by p.j. or someone else, but the reason

there was so little damage and casualties is that after our then-consul in peshawar, lynne tracy, drove through and survived an ambush attempt in 2008 -- and she's a real hero of the foreign service. in fact, secretary clinton gave her the highest award we could give her in the department before she went on to her next assignment. after the attack on lynne tracy, there was a tremendous upgrading of the facilities in peshawar, and that upgrading, that tightening of security, is what prevented more serious damage. so called soft targets are always going to be vulnerable, i regret to say. >> [inaudible] just one more. there are some people, peter galbraith among them, who see the administration's big focus on pakistan as actually an acknowledgement that pakistan is in many ways more important

than afghanistan and that there's more chances -- a higher chance of success. would you say that pakistan and afghanistan are now equally important? or would you say -- >> no, i've addressed that issue repeatedly over the last five years as a private citizen and in the government. and the very fact that the president-elect and hillary asked me to undertake this job during the transition, and created a new office focused on just these two countries as a kind of a detatched twin from the south-central asia bureau -- which we work very closely with, of course. my senior deputy is also a deputy in that bureau so that we're always linked -- the fact that we've done all that would suggest the answer. and the answer, to me, is very simple, that you can't succeed in one unless you succeed in both. but they're so different in

every sense, including our relationship with them. and the management of the interrelationship is why we created the trilateral framework and why we want to resume it this summer. it's the -- and since many other countries are also involved in what happens in afghanistan, including its other neighbors -- china, three of the "stans" have common borders, and the country to its east -- to its west, which we don't have relations with but nonetheless has a long, open border with afghanistan -- it's a -- plus the interests of other countries that don't have contiguous borders but have legitimate security interests all the way from the gulf to india to russia and including the united states, makes -- this is what makes afghanistan so extraordinarily important and complex. and -- but my job is really to focus on these two countries.

however, we have a huge outreach program led by my other deputy, dan feldman, and we're going all over the world. we have now almost 40 countries who have appointed counterparts to me. there were none a year ago -- almost 40. we have regular meetings. the last one was in abu dhabi in january. we're going to have one in madrid in beginning of june after these conferences i mentioned. i should have mentioned that on our calendar. we'll be in madrid in the first week in june. we have regular meetings in washington every two weeks of all the representatives of the embassies who have this huge outreach program. and at the core of it are the two countries who are responsible for managing relations with. and -- but each one we deal with individually, but taking into account their interaction.

and just to repeat something i've said before, the situation we inherited at the beginning of last year was that each of the two countries' desks -- afghanistan desk and pakistan desk -- reported to a different deputy assistant secretary, and then up through the normal chain-of-command. so there was no integration at the operational level. and now, we're making a tremendous effort. the people who work in afghanistan work on pakistan in our office -- the same people. that's not -- that may seem small to all of you and it's not a headline story, but it makes a difference. okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> sent banking committee chris dodd says he has not yet met with republicans to discuss financial reform legislation scheduled for the for this week. he and senator warner briefed

reporters for an hour. after that, you will hear bob corker of tennessee. let me express my gratitude to mark and other members of the committee to work very hard over the last year or so in putting together a proposal on financial reform. we're not there yet, obviously, and a turk -- in achieving the bipartisanship we hope to achieve but the process has been going on as many of you know. we have been talking about talks, both formal and informal, over the last couple of months. let me share a couple of opening thoughts and then turn the microphone over to the podium to mark warner and then we will answer some questions. americans have all across the

country suffered terribly as a result of the economic crisis in the country new homes of ended up in foreclosure, retirement accounts for people spent years accumulating in building have been wiped out, in some cases in the matter of minutes, as a result of the economic collapse and fall in 2008. we've seen the devastation all across our country. we came to the brink of a major meltdown of all financial institutions approximating the great depression of the 1920's. we have avoided that, but obviously not sleets to be done to ensure that we never in that began in the situation where the architecture of our financial institutions, we never again have generations without the tools to combat the next economic crisis, to allow us to respond in a way to grow at a

level that we have over the last couple of years. and lastly we want to make sure that simultaneously we're providing the kind of innovation and creativity that allows our financial-services sector to provide the jobs and credit flow and capital to form so that our economy can produce the kind of opportunities that americans have historically provided. those three goals are what we try to achieve in this legislation. we did not take the action lightly at all. we're committed to making sure that bad decisions on wall street are never again leading to the kind of disaster and economic results on main street. and we're committed that taxpayers never again are put on the hook for massive bailouts such as the bush administration paid out in the fall 2008 in the early months of 2009. wall street and our republican friends are entitled to their own opinions. that is something we have in great abundance of our here.

but no one should be entitled to their own facts. i'm going to turn it to center want to talk about the first one. our bill ends "to big to fail." there is a liquidation of assets that occur. there is no room and we worked literally for weeks to develop the legislation of title i and title ii of our bill. never before have consumers receive the kind of attention within the financial services area but they deserve. our bill provides that independent consumer protection division bureau to offer independent rule making an examination enforcement of those roles. so the consumers are not left behind in the process. and our bill holds wall street accountable and mandates real accountability -- transparency

so that the large banks cannot gamble our money in the shadows of the financial system. those are the major points of our legislation. wall street and our republican friends want to leave in place that status quo. it leaves us vulnerable so another economic crisis occurs without any changes in the law whatsoever. it will once again lead "to be the failed" in phase. without the changes we are talking about in this legislation, that institutions would have that implicit guarantee that the federal government would bail them out in difficult times. we want real reform so that companies are put out of their misery. and senator warner will go on about that at some length. the big banks reading from the same talking points. they want you to believe that our bill leaves in place bailout

for wall street, and if that is true, why are those wall street firms taking the republican side of this bill? the big banks and wall street, are they against it because it is not tough enough on them? it is suggested by the language they are using. i am hopeful this week that with all the efforts that we have been making over the last number of months, that we can come to an agreement to produce the votes that we should have on this legislation and i am hopeful that that can be achieved. i am pleased with the administration and the leaders in congress, that this is moving toward, it is time now to act. we have a lot of conversations but the talking is almost over and now we need to move and make decisions on whether or not we're point to support this legislation. obviously the events of the last week or so, including an investment firm, but there will be no doubt in my mind that our bill would prevent that kind of thing from happening in my view. that is what the public needs to

know. by not enacting our legislation, by filibustering and, we lead the public vulnerable once again to the kind of shenanigans that have occurred in our large financial institutions across this country with that, let me turn to senator warner. >> thank you, chairman dodd. i mentioned to the chairman earlier that i had majored in activity and is part of my mouth is numb. if i start drooling, i would ask someone to raise a hand. [laughter] i want to thank the chairman for his work on this important piece of legislation. all while back, he asked senator and corke -- center core and i could do three things -- make sure taxpayers were protected. make sure that we and "too big to fail."

and make sure we would never be in a place where a large firm -- we did not have a process in place to unwind that firm, put it out of its nursery, in a way that did not read the whole financial system. and if we look back 18 months ago when this crisis first came out, we did not have any of those things in place. we had regulators did not -- that did not share information. we had a lack of transparency among a whole area of derivatives, all whole shadow banking market, that in many ways created the interconnectedness that almost brought the system to a halt to it and finally when the crisis did arise, we had to act in an ad hoc basis because there were no procedures in place to unwind these institutions. senator for her and i and the number of others, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have worked literally hundreds of hours and months and months trying to get this right. there is no democratic or republican approach to get this

right. and the implication of some of our actions could be great -- because we want to make sure that america remains the innovation capital raising capital. those actions in 2008 and never happen again. we realize that the regulators to often did not share information about who was looking at the depository part of a bank versus the security portion. we decided that we needed a systemic risk council that the have these regulators get above and actually share information. it is not received a lot of information, the financial resources office, that on a day- to-day basis collects all the information and analyzes this level of interconnectedness. so we would amount that type of counterparty exposure that aig had. we did not know that in 2008.

now we have it on a daily basis, regularly to have them permission. second, we said that these firms that get so large and interconnected, we were going to put speed bumps and trip wires to prevent future crisis. we found that many institutions, because of some of their off- balance sheet activities, did not have the appropriate capital reserves. we would allow the systemic risk council to establish that. they could look at the liquidity rate -- i'm sorry, not the liquidity of rates, but the leverage ratios. we've seen recent reports that certain institutes had off- balance sheet activities that did not have traditional 20-1 leverage rates, but 100-1. third, we are creating a whole new category of contingent capital, basically debt that would convert to equity if the firm was getting itself into trouble.

that conversion would basically delete that depress the existing shareholders of that the pressure on the existing shareholders to make sure that management does not take undue risk. and finally, we of ashley required that these firms of management put in place a process where they can demonstrate to the regulators that they can orderly on wind themselves in a bankruptcy. we agree with our republican colleagues that bankruptcy should be the preferred process. but we found in the past was that some of these firms are so interconnected and there are international implications that there is no order to the process. we have allowed the regulators to sign off on their own funeral plans. if this process does not work, you've got to have the process. but the resolution laws, not what we saw in 2008 were these firms were concerned, this is

basically a death sentence for these firms. shareholders would be wiped out, management would be wiped out, and these firms would go away. that question the republican leader has added, well, if we create some fund that basically allows the lights to stay on so that we can do and on for -- an orderly and winding process, you should find that? some of our republican colleagues suggested that the way to fund this was to have the financial industry, those that might benefit, pre-fund this, and there would be a process after the resolution to make sure that those that bennett that it would actually pay that back again. now if there were other ways to do this, we would listen. if there were other ways to get at the sec to protect the taxpayers an end of a good too big to fail," to make sure that we never again have a process that leads the taxpayer bailouts, mr. chairman, i know

senator quarter and i said that may be other ways but we need specific suggestions, not broad base partisan attacks. we look forward to working with our colleagues to get this right. i wanted to commend and thank the chairman for allowing me and senator gore and a number of members of the committee to work through these other issues. we took on "too big to fail," derivatives were taken on, but i think we can get a great bill. >> any questions? >> the republicans say that they have 41 signatures to block the bill as you have written it from coming to the floor. given that, how are you going to maneuver? are you in negotiations to amend this $50 billion fund? could that bring republicans? >> i see the press releases but

i am waiting for that knock on the door. to sit and fired a broadside attack some of bell other than what you have mentioned -- senator warner said that this was a republican suggestion to have a prepayment in the bill. why are the big banks objecting to this? small banks get assessments every day to pay for the hopefully avoided eventuality that they may fail, so that their depositors will be protected. there are fees which small banks pay. why shouldn't large financial institutions have a prepayment are to mark so that the taxpayers are not exposed. that is our view, one we shared with our republican friends, and this attack comes out of left field. as long as we do not expose the taxpayer. now as i read the letter, from the republican leader, the words

about a filibuster is not in that letter. they express opposition to the legislation. in light of events of last week or so, the ftc is moving. the lehman brother problems -- i don't believe republican members want to be in a position that in talking about filibustering the bill that would allow us to address this -- i am going to work on the assumption that the classes have full year. if we bring this up later this week, whatever differences may exist in the legislation, but will allow us to debate this legislation, consider amendments, and move forward. and in the meantime, if their specific ideas that we can work on, i am happy to do so. [inaudible] unless you move lord, you never find out the answer to the question. -- unless you move forward, you never find out the answer to the question. [unintelligible]

>> the question is for leader reid who has been very supportive of this process all along very and deferential to the leaders schedule. i hope that we can get to the bill. we would not object to a motion to proceed in the would be no need to a cloture motion. i don't know the answer to that. >> you sound like you're saying the republicans don't want to be in a position -- >> i talked to my colleagues again. it was a month ago when i talk ytogether on derivatives come on corporate governance and these other issues. they know full well that this is not been a partisan effort at all. quite the opposite. another republican members of this body who are tired to be asked to vote no on everything, they want to be a part of the solution and they have got good ideas. many are included in this bill already. we will welcome more if they have them and they come forward.

and they want to be part of the solution and be told -- and do not want to be told once again to vote no. they are sitting on the sidelines allowing that event to occur again because they could not pass a bill. >> the $50 billion fund, do you have plans to drop that? >> i already answered that. if there is another option for that, we will consider it. the irony of ironies is that the suggestion for this came from the republicans. we agreed with it because it made sense. >> the fact is that a fund could create some moral hazard but it is laughable to assume that the dollar amount put ford and the chairman bill would give you all the way for resolution process. the way you get your resolution

process is that you allow the fdic to borrow against the unencumbered assets of this large institution. all lots of conversations with the financial industry, we heard questions about who would be included on prepayment. they understood the fact that you needed to keep the lights on to do an orderly dissolution of the firm. one of the things that we worked on from the beginning is no more conservatorship, no more made this of these firms. receivership -- they need to be put out of business in an orderly way and that part of the firm that may be systemically important should be transferred to another institution. >> you can apply to institutions that have assets of $50 billion or more, and we're talking about at $50 billion fund. over multiple years, for all of these institutions that have assets in assets -- that have assets in excess of that amount

of money. it's laughable. again, this is not the only way. we thought that this was the wave -- putting this bill together, i was looking for common ground and this was one of the common ground. i find it ironic that talking about "too big to fail," they have latched onto a proposal that they are the co-authors of. >> there was the discussion of a trust instrument and the ability for the treasury to borrow. but one of the concerns we all had was, if you had this interim, keeping the lights on for period of time, if you had treasury borrowing, this is where the hypocrisy lies -- if there had been no pre-funded entity financed by the sector, the bill ultimately recruit the benefit from the resolution 3

but you can have a window where taxpayers could be exposed. if there is another way to get at this, and senator corker and i worked on this for a long time. we would love to hear specific suggestions, not broad based partisan attacks. >> bob corker, with whom i have worked a long time, he made a point the other day that this issue and a couple of others that and all -- they could be solved in about five minutes. i suspect that he is right on that. but we need to have the five minutes. we need to find out what it is that the people are talking about, other than the accusation that is occurring here. if there are ideas in which we can do this to bring people together and insulate the taxpayer, i am happy to do that. this is not a question where i am rigidly holding on to this to the extent -- to exclude every other right of your the american taxpayer ought not to be charged for unwinding a firm that got

itself in trouble. why should the american taxpayer pay that bill? that was the point we were all trying to make and that is the point that mark warner and bob corker worked on here. if there are other ideas on how to do it, i am all ears. [inaudible] >> several issues here. senator baucus, that is here -- his interest. i will leave that up to them. my view is that our bill did not include that beyond the jurisdiction of our committee. there is some merit in the idea, but i'd don't think it is part of our bill as we go forward. on the derivatives section, we are working with others over the weekend. there were trying to see if they come to some understanding. i want to make it clear that the shadow economy that mark warner talked about is one of the major reasons why we ended up in trouble financially.

if we need to air, we err on the side of transparency. when markets and price and react to instruments, everyone benefits. when it is done in the shadows, you get yourself in trouble. so you've got to begin the conversation, in my view, on the assumption that it is transparency, it is sunshine, it is light on these instruments. that is the best hedge about getting into this difficulty again. there's some exception to make sense, i am willing to listen, but i begin with the presumption that we want transparency. that is what blanche lincoln does with her proposal and their conversations going on about [inaudible] >> let's leave that conversation. >> the republicans say that if you create a fix for a meltdown, the meltdown will come. you build it, it will come. they look at those provisions --

can you tell us that you disagree? >> we're going to have another financial crisis in the country anyone that thinks that we can draft legislation that protect the americans and others from another crisis -- first of all, it goes beyond our shores. it was the headline in most of our newspapers about a problem in a country, are relatively small country, that pose risk of financial system globally. some of you may recall a few years ago that the market in shanghai represented less than 5% of the volume of the new york stock exchange, it declined by 12% one night. within 24 hours, that's small exchange had an effect on every other markets around the world. this is a global economy we are entered the idea that we're not going to have another economic crisis -- we will. but when these things happened, instead of having an implicit guarantee that you get a bailout -- that is what the president's

stipulation is, we have to bail you out. our legislation says, no, that is over with. those are over with. those bailout words are a sort spot here. you never again be bailed out. so that it doesn't have an effect on other problems, it is something that takes a lot of work to carefully put in place and that is what we have done here. but the presumptions is bankruptcy. the managers get fired, the shareholders lose, liquidations occurred, all those things occur under our bill. >> it -- they say that you are unfairly controlling american institution. >> one of the goals that we have with all of this is to have some harmonization of roles. there's an appetite for it, but in europe and asia and elsewhere in the world, where they would like to see some harmonization so that we do not have everyone

rushing to london a few years ago. there is an appetite for that and that is something after this bill is passed we ought to try to cheat. >> i've heard that critique as well. i think the republicans concur with this -- the presumption is toward bankruptcy. we have put all of these trip wires into place. one of the things that has not got a lot of focus from the press is that funeral plant that has to be approved by the regulators that will take into account their international holding so that there is a path that shows how you do bankruptcy even with these international holdings. the resolution process -- we said this before -- no rational management team whatever per for resolution. in bankruptcy garrett least is a chance you might come out at the other injury and resolution, you're going down. you're being put out of business. and this funeral plan goes into

that. >> are you operating under the assumption that you will have to make changes in the bill are you will not get the vote on the floor? or would you take a gamble and see where republicans do? >> we're working under the presumption that we want to make this a good bill. as we have said, if there are ideas to make this a better bill, the door is wide open -- as it has been. the idea are not forthcoming or they are bad ideas that don't -- in fact they do quite the opposite, then i will reject them and move forward. this comes right down to this basic question -- whose side are you on? whose side are you one? what more do you need to know? what occurred as the result of the near meltdown of the financial system in this country, 8 million net jobs, small business, credit has

seized up in the country -- we came to the brink of financial collapse. what more do you need to know? and if we do nothing, it is the status quo. we're vulnerable once again. we need to change. we need to write these laws to allow regulatory structure to protect us against that kind of event occurring again. that is the choice on wednesday or thursday -- to debate this issue, bring new ideas, and end up with a piece of legislation 3 are you against the side of those -- we of then work -- they have been working to stop this bill. and democrats and republicans will get a chance to decide which side of the equation they are on -- the change in establishing the law and regulations to protect this, or the other side that says no, status quo. thank you all. >> to echo what the chairman has said. i came into this thinking i knew something.

i realized how enormously complex this is. you can be argued -- so many arguments, and they lead to a default of the status quo. the status quo is not working and the chairman and members of the committee have put together a good bill. thank you. >> later bought quarter of tennessee talk to for about 20 minutes of -- bob corker of tennessee talked for about 20 minutes on the senate floor about the financial legislation. >> mr. president, you and i have that number of conversations over the last weekend regarding financial reform. we've had a lot of conversations over the last year regarding financial reform. and as i have watched the public discussions over the last several days, i have been greatly distressed. as a matter of fact, i spoke

this morning to a large number of businessmen in nashville, tenn. the candidly became sole angry thinking about the way the debate has evolved, that i had to think about it coming up here today and controlling data and using that in a productive way. maybe their rhetoric has changed a little bit throughout the day, and i know that my friends from virginia and my friend from connecticut had a press conference earlier today to talk about some of the issues that are being talked about rhetorically. and let's say that what is happening right now -- and it is unfortunate for the american people -- what is happening right now is that both sides of the aisle are trying to herd of goats with language -- up folks with language that does not do justice to this, very difficult, something very much needed in this country. there have been a lot of

discussion about this funding mechanism, this $50 million -- this $50 billion bailout fund, if you will -- and those are somebody else's words by the way, not mine. let's just talk about this and i know the american people are probably tuning and in some cases and wonder how we are jumping into this without a lot of dialogue, but the fact is that we have a financial regulation bill that i hope will come before us and that will dills something called orderly liquidation, so that when a large institution fails, it actually fails. i think that is what the american people would like to see happens. there needs to be a mechanism in place -- if the firm is systemically important to our country, there needs to be the tools in place to make sure that it actually goes out of business. i don't think people in tennessee like to say that when a community bank fails, it actually goes out of business, but when a large wall street

firm fails, we prop it up. we could have a colloquy over this, but the fact is that that is something that is important to address in a bill. a bill certainly needs to deal with the revenue. we need to understand and know that we can have a process for derivatives are cleared and we don't have anybody building up a lot of money instead of doing it on a daily bases. . and we need to deal with some of the issues of consumer protection. so, mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion about how we create something called debtor in possession financing so that when the fdic comes in and seizes one of these large firms that fails, it has the money to -- to keep the lights on and to pay payroll and those kind of things while it's selling off the assets of a firm like this.

the fund that's been discussed in this bill that's going to be changed i know -- and i'm fine in this bill that's going to be changed i know -- and i'm fine perfectly, perfectly good -- but this fund that's been set up is anything but a bailout. it's been set up to, in essence, provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there's money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off. now, a lot of people have said this is a republican idea. there's no question that this is something sheila bair has proposed. the fdic wants to see a prefund. the treasury would like to see a postfund. they'd like to see it come after the fact. i want to digress for a second and say that i hope the reason that treasury wants a post-fund

is not because in lieu of having a pre-fund of $50 billion from these large institutions, they want to see a bank tax. as a matter of fact, i'm going to be surprised if, after republicans argue against a pre-fund and it's changed and the administration comes back and chairman dodd comes back and we end up with post-funding, both of which do the same thing, i might add, and both of them work, it's going to be interesting to me to see if whether that argument basically has led to treasury then having the ability to come back and -- and do a bank tax. i think at the end of the day, that's something that they've been wanting to achieve, and it's interesting how this debate is evolving. but -- but let me go back to this -- let me go back to this pre-fund. at the end of the day, i think what all of us would like to see happen is to see these funds,

these institutions go out of business. and so do you put the money up upfront to take them out of business or do you put it up on the back end where, in essence, what's happening is you're borrowing money from the taxpayers? so would you rather the industry put the money up so the taxpayers are not at risk or would you rather that not happen and during a down time, when it's procyclical, you actually get the firms to put the money up after the fact? i think both of those, by the way, are nice arguments to have and i think they should have been debated in the committee and we can debate it on the floor, but at the end of the day, to make the total debate about whether it's pre or post, neither of which are central to the argument -- both work, it doesn't matter -- it really doesn't matter. either way, you've got to have some moneys available as working capital to shut a firm down.

you can borrow it from the taxpayers -- i don't know if the taxpayers would like that much, and you can do that after the fact, as i've said -- or you can put it up upfront by the industry. either way it's going to be paid back by industry. i will say that in the dodd bill today, there's a post-funding, that if there's any shortfalls, the industry will pay that back. so, again, it's kind of a debate that ends up being silly. in fact -- the fact of the matter is, i know it's going to be changed. the essence of the bill, though, is the fact that you want to make sure that -- that these firms unwind and they go out of business. so let me just -- some of the arguments that are being made, pre-funding of resolution creates a system where certain participants are effectively designated as a protected class as a result of them paying into the fund. i think it's ludicrous.

that's -- that's a ludicrous argument. now, what we could do, if it would make everybody happy, is instead of getting the large firms to pay, we could get community banks to pay too. i don't think there would be many people that would be interested in that, but if we want to get everybody in the country and get the community banks in tennessee -- i'm not interested in that, i don't think the senator from virginia is interested in that -- but if we want to do that, we can ensure that nobody's part of the protected class. so i find that to be a ludicrous argument. here's another argument. "this allows such firms competitive funding advantage over smaller institutions, like community banks. banks." so in other words, if you're saying that these large firms, if they fail, they're going to go out of business and it's going to be more painful than bankruptcy, that somehow they're protected.

i find that -- or have a competitive advantage. i find that to be kind of ludicrous and i hope that argument is not used. it probably will be but i won'te it won't. then there's one i've read recently. the fund is a signal to credit markets that the u.s. government stands ready to prop up, bail out and insulate large financial firms. that's an interesting one. i mean, the fact of the matter is that the -- we're talking about orderly liquidation. the existence of the fund allows managers of large financial institutions to conduct riskier practices and, therefore, counterparties will not feel obliged to perform due diligence because, in the event of stress, there's such a financial slush fund available to bail out unsecured and short-term creditors. you've got to be kidding me? i mean, that is absolutely the opposite of what is intended. now, let me -- let me say this before somebody tunes out.

i think this bill has problems. okay? and i think there are issues that need to be resolved around orderly liquidation. the senator from virginia and i both know what they are, and there are some flexibilities that have been granted to the fdic, to the federal reserve and others that need to be tiented because -- tightened, because there are just some words that should say -- instead of saying "shall" "say "may," when you're telling an agency what they have to do or what they may do. so there's much in this bill that needs to be fixed. and i want to say, as the dodd bill sits today, i could not vote for it. i absolutely cannot support the bill. but what concerns me is 9 rhetoric -- but what concerns me is the rhetoric, the rhetoric that's being used to talk about something that is very important to our country. and it's being used on both sides, i might add. on one side saying they're, you know, the republicans want to protect wall street firms. i can tell you this. i think there is very few republicans that do not want to

see financial regulation take place. and i think there are very few republicans that don't want to see it done the right way. and, candidly, i think most republicans and democrats are listening to community bankers. they're not listening to wall street, would be my guess. so that rhetoric to me is -- is off base. the rhetoric on my side of the aisle saying that -- that this orderly liquidation title basically keeps too-big-to-fail in place, the central pieces of it, that's not true.are there some things around the edge that need to be fixed? yes. and my sense is, as i've said on the floor before, we could fix those in about five minutes if we'd just sit down and do it. and i don't understand, i do not understand why the rhetoric has gotten where it is. i'd like to see us pass -- pass a bill that makes sense. now, the kind of things we should be talking about, okay, not the fact that -- that this

is a bailout fund. and, by the way, whether it's pre or post, that debate -- it doesn't matter to me. the fact is, we've got to have some debtor in possession financing available to wind down these firms, sell off the assets, make sure the stockholders are absolute toast, make sure the unsecured creditors are toast, make sure that it's so painful -- so painful -- that nobody ever wants to go through this. we absolutely need to do that. the american people need to know that we in congress are not going to prop up a failed institution. that they're going to live the same life and capitalism that everybody else has to live. people in tennessee when they fail, they fail. the kind of things we ought to be talking about and have been talking about -- and i think can solve -- is -- i think we ought to have more judicial involvement in the process. i think we ought to improve the bankruptcy process so that -- so that these large institutions have a more viable route through

bankruptcy. i think we ought to deal with the disparate treatment of similarly situated creditors and the fact is, the way the post funding in this bill is now set up, we don't -- if a creditor receives more money than they should, that money is not recouped. we know how to fix that. i know the senator from virginia and i both know how to fix that. those are the kinds of things we need to be talking about. creditor prioritization -- prioritization. there's no question that right now in the bill certain creditors can be treated differently by the fdic than others. we need to be looking at bankruptcy stacks so that people understand how much they're going to be paid back and they're going to be in the same order that they anticipate being in. we need to be tightening the definition of a financial firm. right now in the bill, the way it reads, an auto company can end up being part of this.

i mean, right now it's not tight enough. auto company may be a stretch, but something other than a financial firm could be dealt with the way the language is now reading. and certainly for shiewrks fannie and freddie need to be treated the same as any other financial firm. we need to have a solvescy test to make sure that regulators that do not allow regulators the flexibility to protect firms in crisis. we need to make sure that there's a duration. in other words, if the fdic comes in and has to take over, after due process, tangs takes over one of these firms that has posed systemic risks, we need to know that there is an end date. the senator from virginia and i agree that conservativeship should not be on the table. this is not a receivership.

these firms should not go out of business. language is not in there right. there are a number of things like this. i could go on and on. i'm probably boring much of the watching audience if there is any, with some of these technical issues. but those are the kinds of things that we in this body ought to be talking bflt and, they're important and they matter, but to use up time -- rhetoric, rhetoric that in essence is used to sort of brand something in a way that really isn't the way that it is, to me, is not productive, and i didn't come here to do that. and i think, again, i think both sides of the aisle have tried to cast the characters in certain ways. it's sort of this herd process

that happens around here, right? i mean, everybody wants to get everybody on the same femme so what we do is use rhetoric. it sort of quharnlings people up and gets everybody -- everybody on the same team. i don't like that process, mr. president. i don't want to be a part of that process, mr. president. i have joined in with other republicans to try to make sure that this bill gets in the middle of the road. i've done that on the basis that both sides, both sides are going to deal with good faith. i know that the senator from virginia knows that we went through a process with this bill where we voted it out of committee in 21 minutes. 1,326-page bill we voted out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. the stated goal was to make sure that both sides didn't harden against each other and that we could negotiator a bill before it came to the floor -- came to

the floor. we'd negotiator a bipartisan bill. that's why it was stated that we did that. i mean, how can responsible senators, 23 senators, both of which -- all of which have problems with this bill, how can you vote something out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments unless you know that a negotiation process is going to take place afterwards to create a bipartisan bill? nobody in their right mind would have agreed to do that. and so what i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, what i would say to the folks on the other end of pennsylvania that seem to be -- turn the rhetoric up, i take it as a commitment, as a commitment, from my friends on the other side of that we're going to negotiate a bipartisan bill and we will do that in good faith. and also to expect the same on

my side of the aisle. that we are going to negotiate, in good faith, to get a bill. and before it comes to the floor, before it comes to the floor, before it comes to the floor, the major templet pieces will be worked out. the issues surrounding the consumer. the issues around liquidation. and the issues around consumer protection. as i mentioned, there are a number of issues that we need to debate here on the floor. to me, they are outside the realm of the template itself. i hope that this body -- i know the senator from virginia, and i have worked with him a great deal. we have come from a world that was different than this. i have become greatly distressed. i get distressed at both sides of the aisle when we have an important issue

>> live at 11:00, the house financial services looks into the bankruptcy of lehman brothers.

witnesses include treasury secretary tim geithner, ben bernanke, ben shapiro, and former lehman executives. >> we still have a vast workforce out there with people who cannot learn and cannot compete. 85% of the people right now, we have to do more with them. >> whether bill clinton from 1987 or last week, the c-span video library features 15,000 individuals and adds new faces to the politicians, reporters, an expert you can follow. every program since 1987 now available free on line at the c- span video library. >> today is the 15th anniversary of the bombing of the alfred p. murrah federal building in oklahoma city. 168 people were killed and hundreds injured. a ceremony marking the anniversary included remarks by homeland security secretary to

pat -- janet the polish town of and the former oklahoma -- oklahoma governor tom keating. this is all less than an hour and half. ♪

♪

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. welcome.

i am the chairman of the oklahoma city national memorial foundation. we have several special guests with us, secretary janet napolitano from the department from land security. -- homeland security. the lieutenant governor, the mayor, the state superintendent of public instruction, congresswoman mary fallon, the executive director of the american association of museums, the governor and his wife, anthony russell, regional administrator fema region 6, and thank you all for joining us on this important day. 15 years ago, april 19 began as a beautiful day. however, the beauty that we

enjoyed on that day was erased in an instant at 9:00 and 2:00 a.m.. -- 9:02 a.m. thousands of people rushed in to help us. just doing their job, some would say. but in doing so, they became heroes to us all. another hero that was doing his job was patrolling interstate 35 near perry, oklahoma when he noticed a car missing a license plate. he pulled the driver of the car over. his actions on that day were the first step in bringing justice to the perpetrators of the events that occurred on the site. that trooper is with us today. please welcome retired highway patrol trooper and noble county sheriff, charlie haynor.

charlie? [applause] >> we come here to remember those that were killed, those that survived, and those changed forever. they all leave here and of the impact of violence. may this memorial offer comfort, strength, st. -- peace, hope, and serenity. please join me in 168 seconds of silence.

>> let us pray. almighty god, 15 years ago, a terrible dark fantasy exploded in our faces. this ground has been sanctified by the blood of your children and many different people we knew and loved. today, we feel the way you made us to feel. oh, lord, just as this memorial has beautified the death and the destruction we have shared, we pray that you will help us take all the fragments and broken pieces of our lives and make something beautiful out of them. we thank you, god.

you continue to be faithful to us. we thank you for raising up children of light, courageous rescuers, and first responders. generous givers and patient teachers. and all those that have given sacrificial lead to procure this monument, to restore our city, to renew our state and protect our nation. as a move through the gates of the memorial together, as we experience the valley of the shadow of death mean gold beside the still waters, may our souls be restored by the rising sun. may we leave here with an awareness that you, oh god,

remember us, precious in your site. and remember who we are born to be. in the name of the lord of lords, the king of kings, and the prince of peace, amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the presentation of the colors followed by the singing of our national anthem.

♪ oh say can you see them by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched or so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare

the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there oh, say does that star spangled banner yet wave? o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

>> please be seated. thank you to the united states air force band of mid-america from scott air force base, ill., and to our famous friends for hosting our guests in oklahoma city. our city is certainly a change place in attitude and appearance that was prior to the bombing. during the last 15 years, we have worked together with common resolve to defeat the evil attack against us. we constructed this beautiful memorial and the compelling museum on the grounds of the attack. we rebuilt heavily damaged city

blocks surrounding the site, and today, we continue our work together building an even greater oklahoma city. now please welcome the mayor of oklahoma city. [applause] >> thank you. as john mentioned a few moments ago, april 19, 1995 began much like today. the temperatures were seasonal, the sun came mount -- came out, and our lives were changed forever. and ultimately, each of us individually and collectively have been faced with choices. choices between strength and uncertainty, choices of optimism and pessimism, choice is between freedom and fear, choices

between moving forward and falling back. we have made our choices collectively and individually. we have chosen strength, we have chosen optimism, we have chosen freedom, and we have chosen to move forward together with a level of unity that is unmatched in any american city. as it should be expected, because our experiences are like no other. i don't know what this site looks like from that side of the pond this morning, but i can tell you what it looks like from over here. it is among the most inspiring i have ever seen. it seems a little surprising, maybe it should not be, but the further we are removed from

that day in 1995, the crowds seemed to swell. ultimately, this remains an event that should be remembered not because we can forget, but because -- not because we can't forget, but because we choose to remember. [applause] >> we appreciate all that you do, mayor. as our community approaches this anniversary, memorial -- we ensure that this story, our story would be taught for generations. in the earliest days of design and construction, those often discussed the fact that some day we would need to teach students that are not even born on april 15 about the events

that transpired and the lessons that we learned. that is why our staff sat down with state superintendent of public instruction sandy garrett to request and begin work to ensure the story of the oklahoma city bombing and the lessons learned are taught as a permanent part of oklahoma history. of course, many teachers were already leaving student fields it -- leading a student field trips to the state -- to this site. there was no formal program for that teaching. this morning, superintendent garrett joins us with an update on those efforts. [applause]

>> thank you very much, chairman. it is my privilege to be here today, and with the honored guests on the stage, to announce that, yes, our children will learn forever about this event and the way the oklahoma people came together. 15 years ago at 9:01, we began an educational journey that we never would have imagined before that moment. a single point in time that now brings us all to this place, this stage in our corrective his -- collective history. just moments ago, throughout the state of oklahoma, our school children joined us in 168 moments of silence. [applause] since 9:03 a.m. on that faded

wednesday morning, oklahoma and teachers have been instructing students about the event so tragic that few of us could ever forget. and as the chairman said, many of them have traveled on field trips to the museum. in those weeks to come, it offered comfort and assurance, and shoulder to cry on, a hug for the loss of the loved one to help and understand that which had been unimaginable. the new generation of oklahomans can't remember what happened here. we have taken steps to ensure that all oklahoma students will always be taught about this historic event and the lessons learned from that. the history of our state, our nation, and our world.

in the years following the bombing, oklahoma educators and the state department of education curriculum specialists, community leaders, and others began working with the national museum staff to develop lesson plans. the lesson plans have been developed and refined throughout the years. others from elementary school to high school will continue to develop those lessons and to make certain that there a priority -- that they are a priority every school year. we have shared materials with them. as chairman of the state board of education, i was proud earlier this year when we began the rulemaking process to officially add these events to

the core curriculum content to the state curriculum. and to relevant past standards for academic students were added to the courses, oklahoma history, u.s. history, and world history. on april 6, i was honored to join the national staff and legislative co-authors, ron justice, governor henry for his signing for house bill 2750 approving the requirement for all students to study the oklahoma city bombing and its aftermath. the legislation -- [applause] the legislation also requires the event being included in the state adopted textbooks for oklahoma, u.s. history, and world history. and also working with the

memorial to provide additional teaching resources. many of those are available on- line for everyone here and for classrooms throughout the world. we also plan to create a virtual field trip to the memorial and the museum said the students from gaiman to broken bow can experience the power of this place and its place in our history. the state board of education's action as well as new state law gives the bombing of the federal building of place in history as well as how the people of this state came together forever after. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, yougarrett, -- superintendent garrett.

we firmly believe that educating our children with a sense of violence -- to show the sense of violence and terrorism -- helped to shape a better future for all of us. we're also joined by one of our oklahoma congressional leaders who was serving as -- she brings with her a resolution from the united states congress. please welcome congresswoman mary fallon. [applause] >> good morning. secretary napolitano, governor henry, and our other distinguished guests. it is my great honor to introduce a special resolution the united states congress co- sponsored by the entire

congressional delegation, and it reads: resolution, remembering the victims of the attack of the federal building in oklahoma city, oklahoma on april 19, 1995, a terrorist detonated a truck bomb at the federal building in oklahoma city. this is one of the worst terrorist attacks to ever occur on the united states soil, taking the lives of 168 people and injuring more than 850 others, many of them united states government employees that work in the federal building. and whereas this cowardly act of domestic terrorism affected thousands of families and horrified millions of people across the united states of america. and whereas the people of oklahoma responded to the tragedy through a remarkable effort of federal, state, and

local personnel. in other emergency services, thousands of volunteers throughout the community that save lives, assisted the injured and wounded, provided meals and support for those that came to oklahoma city to offer a sense of -- and whereas this courageous response has been known to become the oklahoma standard which was later emulated by many americans following the terrorist attack on september 11, 2001. and whereas following the 1995 attack, people of oklahoma and the united states pledged to build and maintain a permanent national memorial to remember those that were killed, those that survived, and those changed forever. whereas this pledge will be fulfilled by oklahoma city

national memorial which draws hundreds of thousands of visitors throughout the world each year. and whereas the inscription on the wall that the oklahoma city national memorial reads, we come here to remember those who were killed, those who survived, and those changed forever. they all leave here know the impact of violence. this memorial offered comfort, strength, peace, hope, and serenity. it has been replaced with a new safe, secure, and functional federal building in downtown oklahoma city that houses many of the offices that [unintelligible] sending a message to the people and the government of the united states that we will not be affected by it -- hurt by terrorists. and in the house of

representatives, we join the people of the united states in sending best wishes and prayers to the families, friends, and neighbors of the 168 killed in a terrorist bombing. and sen the best wishes to those injured in the bombing. and expressed gratitude to the thousands of first responders, rescue workers, medical personnel, volunteers from the community and across the nation who answered the call for help on the morning of the attack and the weeks and months thereafter. may it be resolved on this day, and it is signed by the speaker of the u.s. house of representatives, and mr. chairman, i have the resolution to present to you. [applause] may god bless oklahoma.

>> thank you, youfallin, -- congresswoman fallin, thank you very much for being here. in 2006, the memorial museum completed a rigorous accreditation process to join the other nationally recognized museums that meet these highest of standards as recognized by the american association of museums. as we maneuver through the process, peers and evaluators would tell us that what we do at the memorial museum is, in many respects, unique to the museum world. we recognize and take very seriously that many of you have entrusted to us precious and personal artifacts to help tell the story of what happened here.

these important personal possessions help our museum remain compelling and personal to the millions of visitors and help them relate not only to the events that transpired on that day, but to the people who were affected. these positions humanize the high price of terrorism and create a living memory of your loved ones and the human story that unfolded on april 19, 1995. now please welcome, to oklahoma city, the president and chief executive officer of the american association for museums, mr. bell. [applause] >> thank you, john, and good morning to all of you. thank you for inviting me to be with you on this solemn day of remembrance, the day of remembrance for oklahoma city

and for our entire nation. a day when we are all " to reflect on the lessons of unfathomable hatred and the senseless violence. there are 17,500 museums in the united states, institutions that interpret and preserve america's great " -- a great cultural and historical heritage is. of those museums, only 775 are credited. accreditation is the highest recognition that a museum can achieve in the united states. the oklahoma national memorial is, as you have heard, one of those 775. but on this day, this museum is the most important museum, and the most important memorial in our country. and on any day, it is a museum

which should be seen by all americans. we know museums as collecting institutions, works of art and historical artifacts, documents. museums are also at the task of collecting and preserving memories. honoring in passing that memory down to our children and to their children. museums are stewards of the spirits and conscious -- conscience of what has come before us and too often what has passed from us. the collections of the oklahoma city national memorial and museum, 1 million documents, artifacts, and photographs, and sure that we will never lose the memory or the lessons of that horrible day on april 19, 1995. what this stunning and unforgettable memorial and a

museum holds and preserves is a sacred memory for the men, women, and children that died or remained in this tragedy. the wives and husbands, the sons of daughters and grandchildren, the friends and neighbors and co-workers. the students and teachers, the first responders, members of this community. what greater good can a museum offer us than this act of preserving the memory in the spirit of these people? in his 1984 essay, roger rosenblatt wrote his essay entitled, "de feel the death of strangers? he wrote, there may not be two kinds of kind in the world, but there seem to be two kinds of sympathy. at one that weeps and disappears, and one that never leaves a watch.

sympathy, unlike pity, must have some application to the future. if we do not feel deeply the deaths we are powerless to prevent, how can we be alerted to the deaths that we might prevent? memorial sites like this one help us keep that watch. it is impossible to visit the museums in dallas or at the hotel and memphis without the spirit of the leaders claim their touching you on the shoulder, during your memory with their rhetoric, urging you to go forth with faith and hope, urging you to remember. to feel deeply those deaths that we are powerless to prevent. museums have the capacity to transcend time and space. not far from my office is the

united states holocaust memorial. it is a sobering place like this one, and there is an exhibit that grips all that attends the museum. the issues that were systematically and diligently taken from a riding prisoners -- from arriving prisoners. more than any other piece of evidence collected by the museum, these thousands of shoes are objects that recall for us the people who once wore those shoes. men walking to work, women in their homes, the children at play. an engraving on the wall of the holocaust museum reads, in part, we are the shoes, we are the last witnesses.

their shoes in the collection here as well. these 168 shares, like the issues at the holocaust museum, bear witness. each one asking us to remember. i am listening to these chairs right now, as are all of you. i am listening to ted allen, patricia knicks, and to the others. and in doing so, in listening, we are all part of that great loss. we are on watch. what greater good k museum offer us that this act of watching over the memory? who they were, what they meant to us, and what their absence means now.

this day and every day, to those of us still here. eventually, something must fill the silence that comes with a loss. especially 0 loss of this magnitude and the degree of tragedy. the national museum provides a place where we can began to fill the silence. this place resonates with voices able to express hope for future that will be free of the violence and hatred that this community has to endure one day in 1995. never again. never forgotten. these are the lessons. the priceless artifacts of hope. this museum and a memorial

preserve them for us all. now and forever. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ford. we're honored to have you here with us, and we're grateful for the recognition of this museum. 15 years ago, our state was led by a couple who had been in office for only 100 days. they led us through our darkest hour. it the standard we sat as a community is still known across the nation and around the world as the oklahoma standard. welcome, governor frank keating and mrs. cathy keating. [applause]

>> thank you. the oklahoma standard, you know it when you see it. but it isn't easy to find a precise definition. it represents a blizzard, a plethora of cultures, families, backgrounds, nationalities, peoples from all over the united states and all over the world. but on april 19, 1995, it was established first and foremost as a standard of love and commitment and brotherhood. all of us who were there who love our neighbors and friends who were lost and are committed today to those who survive will never forget. but we will be, as long as we live, supportive and committed

to those 168 who were lost, their families, and loved ones. why is there an oklahoma standard? first, we prepare for natural disasters here. unfortunately, this time of year is tornado season. and so it is incumbent upon all of us to have confidenct, professional leadership. firefighters and police officers that will help us at the time of the natural disaster. and thank goodness that on april 19 is the family of first responders, the police department here at oklahoma city, the highway patrol, the national guard, the fire service, the emergency responders that we had, highly gifted and skilled people in charge. . .

>> everybody came here. private sector come up business sector, providing meals and assistance anytime whenever anybody asked for anything.

many of the rescue workers remember never having to ask for batteries because of ever truck loads. when they left, and those firefighters from the white fema teams showed me a $1 bill, he said to you know what this is? i said i am in politics and recognize money. he said this is an oklahoma dollar. i've brought this with me when i came here and it is the one i am leaving with. i never had to pay for anything. and what an incredible community. [applause] it is the spirituality of our people. yesterday, we celebrated the lives that were lost at the first christian church near here where the families were first taken.

to my left shoulder, the catholic church, the oldest cathedral was nearly destroyed. the methodist church to my right was the place where those recovered were first taken. this was a spiritual commitment from the first minute and that is why all of us today are so stitched together in love and brotherhood and hope become -- because as horrible as that time was, good will come. i am so proud to be in oklahoman. [applause] >> the oklahoma standard was in placed in our community and with our neighbors from the earliest times, from the land run, through the booms and busts of our state. it was during the rescue and recovery at the oklahoma -- that

the oklahoma standard was first seen and experienced by people all over the world. it was then that it was noted and received. it was given a standard of measurement for all of their ac ts of violence or responses to any kind of community disaster to be measured. it was a level of excellence that was not only from the professionals but it was from the community and the citizens and our neighbors and our friends who gave so generously of their time and spirit and love and prayers. it is helping us get back to our feet. it was an experience across the world just four days after 9/2. a community came together through volunteerism and put on

a prayer service for the victims and families and rescue workers to share our hope, faith, and love. it was experienced by the thousands and thousands of roses that were sent here from florists all over the u.s. to be given to the family members to show that we were sending our love. it was given by the people who brought teddy bears and flowers and letters and memorabilia and a left them on the fence and continue to do so because they shared in our grief. the spirit of oklahoma has left an indelible mark not only in the hearts and souls of each oklahoman, in many across the

world. [applause] >> thank you. when the keatings left office, we have been blessed by the leadership and support of governor brad henry and first lady kim henry. together, we carry on the memorial commission and recognize our role as guardians always of this memorial. please welcome governor brad henry. [applause] >> at this place, 50 years ago today, -- 15 years ago today, the lives of all oklahomans and

all americans were changed forever. today, we gather at this sacred ground as we do each april 19 to reaffirm our vial to never forget -- vow to never forget. what occurred here also came to illustrate the best of humanity, the love and compassion, the decency and generosity, and warm spirit of our people. as we always do, oklahomans met tragedy with triumph. from such a horrible crime, teen details of outstanding goodness. from the rescue and recovery workers who gathered here from across oklahoma, across the

nation, and across the world, to the dips both large and small that poured into oklahoma city -- to the gifts both large and small that poured into oklahoma city to the makeshift memorial left in the chain-link fence a few yards away. the aftermath actually came to show the innate goodness of humanity. the stories and the lessons of that fateful day are many. in an instance, we learned of the destructive power of hatred. in the next, we learned this healing power of love and faith. those are lessons that we shall not forget. nor shall we forget the 168 oklahomans who perished here,

including 19 children and babies. for the hundreds of others who were seriously wounded. i commend the national memorial and its supporters across oklahoma and the nation and world for preserving those memories both terrific and hopeful of that day and the weeks that followed. earlier this month, i signed a measure to ensure that the oklahoma city bombing is included in the history curriculum of all oklahoma students. students entering high school this year were born after 1995 and we have a duty to ensure that future generations remember those lost and injured here, that they understand the lessons of this vital part of our shared

history to ensure that love and goodness shall continue to prevail over hatred and that similar atrocities can be prevented in the future. pslam 46, verse 5, it tells us that to god is in the midst of the city. it shall not be toppled. by the very grace of god, we oklahomans conquered evil with good. we overcame in despair with hoped. we will continue to honor those taken from us and we will continue to build a better community and state by building on the good news and hope that springs from these sacred grounds. the oklahoma standard is not a

past event. it is part of the character and fabric of the people of this city and state. god bless us all. thank you. [applause] >> our office -- our special guest and keynote speaker is familiar with our tragedy and triumph. in 1995, janet nepal a tonneau was serving as the u.s. attorney -- janet nap olitano. in a dozen to come out she was selected as the third female governor of arizona. under her leadership, arizona

created one of the first homeland security agencies in the entire nation and opened the first state counter- terrorism center. she was also the first woman to chair the national governors' association where she was a driving force behind the creation of the public safety task force and the homeland security advisers counsel. it is no wonder that president obama selected her to be this nation's third secretary of the department of homeland security. she is passionate about the safety and security of all u.s. citizens and she is a staunch defender of justice for all. i have been fortunate to work with her during her service both as governor and as secretary of

homeland security. i would add from personal experience that she is a pretty cool person. i am pleased that she has joined us today. please help me welcome secretary of homeland security janet napolitano. [applause] >> thank you, governor. good morning. i am humbled to be here today to mark this solemn anniversary and to honor the 168 lives taken from us. 15 years ago, in an unspeakable act of terrorism. >> we honor these survivors, friends and family members who continued sense of hope and

strength and spirit inspires us all. we are in the first spotters' -- first responders who risked their lives rushing into the building in acts of selflessness. we honor the continued need for vigilance against the violent ideologies that led to this attack so that we can recognize their sides in our communities and the stand together to defeat them. above all, we remind ourselves that what defines us as a nation, as a people, and as communities, is not how weeks have suffered but how we have risen about it and how we have overcome. the history of oklahoma city will not be written by this attack